You know, we were just saying to ourselves that what the gun control debate really needs is a defense of total ignorance on the subject matter. Thankfully, the Washington Post has given ex-Gawker employee Adam Weinstein a platform to do just that:
Here's @adamweinstein on the bad-faith practice of 'gunsplaining.' https://t.co/zXJ2vnb5M7
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) March 6, 2018
Oh, FFS.
Ahahahhahahaha https://t.co/KfU5Pm03Hf
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) March 6, 2018
LOLOLOL
Adam Weinstein….
arguing against "bad-faith" arguments…
LOLOLOLOLOL
Do you even know who Adam Weinstein is? https://t.co/8EzuO0mO0e
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 6, 2018
This piece indeed deserves your derision.
Weinstein writes:
The phenomenon isn’t new, but in the weeks since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a lot of gun-skeptical liberals are getting a taste of it for the first time: While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between the terms clip and magazine.
Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control.
…
If only these adversaries were a little more honest, I’ve often thought, and more precise in their language on the subject, we could have a serious debate on the finer points of a gun violence policy, instead of a bad-faith propaganda race.
Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact.
Recommended
Meh. This piece engages in some of the same bad-faith attacks that it decries. https://t.co/en72OYDwcl
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 6, 2018
Yep. Weinstein’s problem isn’t people talking out of their asses on guns; it’s people who know what they’re talking about making the ass-talkers look bad.
Essentially: ‘You don’t need to know stuff before speaking out, lecturing, and proposing legislation. Anyone telling you differently is a bully’
Now apply this absurdity to medicine, economics, physics, biology…virtually ANYTHING. Sound insane? Well, It is https://t.co/X0IowaPFdl
— Chet Cannon (@Chet_Cannon) March 6, 2018
This is beyond embarrassing. Asking for people to know about a subject before they propose laws related to it isn’t bullying, it’s common sense.
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) March 6, 2018
Oh, good grief. Now knowing what you're talking about on any given subject matter is offensive. Democracy dies in darkness indeed, WaPo. ? https://t.co/poGd7yF7a0
— Sister Delecto Toldjah ? (@sistertoldjah) March 6, 2018
Just pathetic.
¡Viva ignorancia! https://t.co/DaKalw4jby
— Anthony Bialy (@AnthonyBialy) March 6, 2018
https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/971114497728483334
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/971119329621225472
“Using technical & accurate information is just a distraction from the issue at hand. Now watch me lecture you about economics, foreign policy and the planet’s climate you denier.”
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) March 6, 2018
"We need to ban all red trucks."
"But firetrucks are red."
"STOP TRUCKSPLAINING TO ME. It's bad-faith." https://t.co/8EzuO0mO0e
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 6, 2018
"We have to ban ARs."
"Why?"
"AR means assault rifle."
"What? No it doesn't."
"STOP GUNSPLAINING TO ME. It's bad faith!"
"But an AR isn't as an assault rifle."
"OMG!!! BAD FAITH BAD FAITH!!" https://t.co/8EzuO0mO0e
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 6, 2018
No one remotely interested in serious debate should ever take a page from Weinstein’s book.
A little "fake news" is ok every now and then if you're on the side of the angels is a bad look. https://t.co/jlEwC5SFTc
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) March 6, 2018
I'm trying to imagine a major media outlet running a Kellyanne Conway piece about "the bad-faith practice of disparaging "alternative facts"". https://t.co/jlEwC5SFTc
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) March 6, 2018
Imagine the Washington Post defending someone who said "I don't know what a uterus is but here are my thoughts on abortion policy"
— NeoN: Automataster (@neontaster) March 6, 2018
You’ll have to be content with just imagining. Because they’d never do it. Not in a million years.
This article basically summed up:
"Facts and specifics don't matter, because WE CARE ABOUT KIDS MORE THAN THEM".
The true bad faith players are those refusing to take the time to learn the facts, and then make a thoughtful argument for gun control…which is wholly possible. https://t.co/ui8on6DMrK
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 6, 2018
Or if you want a GIF explainer.. pic.twitter.com/IMxcgbf0i5
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 6, 2018
Look: I am not a gun person. I own zero guns. I have fired a gun one single time in my life (a rifle hunting with friends).
But a few years ago, the gun issue became important enough to me that I spent a lot of time reading up, asking questions, and getting smarter.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 6, 2018
The least the public can ask, if you are going to be in the media and pretend to be an expert on guns, is to spend the same amount of time to educate yourself that I, a simple layman that doesn't appear on TV but cares about this issue, spent on it.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 6, 2018
And if you get something wrong because you get it wrong, fine. That is acceptable.
But if you get it wrong because you don't care enough to try to get it right…well, then that's on you.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 6, 2018
Yep.
Secondly, "gunsplaining" is necessary because people who have no idea what they're talking about tend to come up with policy proposals that are flawed and cause more problems.
That's the opposite of "bad-faith." https://t.co/8EzuO0mO0e
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 6, 2018
Also, of course, the idea that people shouldn't inform themselves before speaking on a subject or advocating for a policy is remarkably bad.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 6, 2018
Isn't it strangely coincidental that the left's arguments almost always benefit from people not being informed about a given subject?
It's almost like… https://t.co/pTQViItRFE
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 6, 2018
Almost like liberalism is driven by misinformation and ignorance. Fortunately, there are solutions to this problem:
https://twitter.com/Oil_Guns_Merica/status/971112770807713792
Instead of running apologias for the ignorance of gun control advocates, WaPo or another major outlet should hire @StephenGutowski to write about guns and gun issues in a factual way.
Learning more would do everyone some good. https://t.co/jlEwC5SFTc
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) March 6, 2018
True story.
Do better, WaPo. We know you can.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member